Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

[james bond]

I do get what you say, but I simply don't believe it. Decades ago I took a literature class where two topics were the Bible as literature, and Greek Mythology. The instructor said that circa 1000 years BC scholars did not have the language sophisticated enough to articulate what they were thinking, and written words were not available to the masses. So the more academic ideas were expressed as stories and metaphor and handed down verbally. It wasn't until 400 BC that more enlightened scholars (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle { I got an A+ for an essay on Socrates}) were able to express their ideas more clearly and not metaphorically.

One interesting aspect that was covered is that Greek mythology also has an "Adam" (forgot his name) and "Eve" (Pandora). Eve was enlightened with the apple, and Pandora with the infamous box. There was also a flood with different details. Seems like a cross connection of ideas

The early chapters of the Bible as metaphor is slightly inaccurate according to current science, but just fine otherwise. In the opening of Geneses the word "day" is just a period of time, etc. I'm sure you know how non-evangelicals think.

Last point first, there are the faithful who think Genesis is metaphor, but it isn't. It's just too bad that scholars have come to think of it as such. I think it's the longevity and the sophistication of humans that they have to get over and the global flood wiping these people out. The ancient people from Adam and Eve's generation knew how to use tools and farm, play musical instruments, some metallurgy, build boats, write books, and tend to animals. They weren't any cave people or prehistoric people like the Flintstones. That is from the evolution story side. If there were people who had to live in caves, then they were destitute. After all, these people are supposed to have evolved from monkeys. There were no people labeled Neanderthals, but there were giant people called Nephilim.

Anyway, if you look at Greek Mythology, then do you see more resemblance with evolution's story or the Bible theory? Your instructor saying that circa 1000 years BC scholars did not have the language sophisticated enough to articulate what they were thinking applies to after Tower of Babel where people ended up speaking different languages.

 

[james bond]

Coming from someone who thinks the Flintstones was a documentary series.

Oh, one more thing. We haven't got to this yet, but the Flintstones are based on your history of evolution.

We find throughout history that fiction is made up from true historical events. Wuwei is going to come back and say that the Bible is made up from Greek mythology tho.

When was The Flintstones and all those other prehistoric tales made up? It came after evolution and the 1850s. See how that works?

So, Angelo, you farking idiot, the Flintstones is based on your little fairy tale of evolution. If evolution was true, then we should have heard about it long before when these cartoons were made up.

 

[james bond]

Slyly back do dating? We never left that extremely important topic.
As far as radiological dating, you are going to have to show me explicitly what creationists have other than vague sentences like contamination. How is it contaminated? For virtually all dating that has ever been done? New physics proposed? If so, what?

Now you are being stubborn, Wuwei. Unless you know what the parent-daughter ratios were, then we cannot really discuss accurate radiometric dating. If God did create a mature universe, then the light and radiation will be mature, as well. This is why I keep asking you if you have any other evidence? I don't think there is or else I would probably know about it. You are basing old Earth on two things -- evolution and assumption of old Earth and universe from radioisotope dating of meteorites which you did not exactly agree with. Have you changed your mind and agree with it now? If what you state is correct, then there would be other evidence to back you up.

Creation scientists have the following -- Radioisotope Dating of Meteorites: IV. The article is about residual primordial material from the formation of the solar system that was used for the formation of the other parts of the solar system on day 4.

"Snelling (2014a,b,c) then sought to discuss the possible significance of this clustering in terms of various potential creationist models for the history of radioisotopes and their decay. He favored the idea that asteroids and the meteorites derived from them are residual “primordial material” from the formation of the solar system, which is compatible with the Hebrew text of Genesis that could suggest God made “primordial material” on Day One of the Creation Week, from which He made the non-earth portion of the solar system on Day Four. Thus he argued that today’s measured radioisotope compositions of all these chondrites and eucrites may reflect a geochemical signature of that “primordial material,” which included atoms of all elemental isotopes. So if some of the daughter isotopes were already in these chondrites and eucrites when they were formed, then the 4.55–4.57Ga “ages” for them obtained by Pb-Pb and U-Pb isochron and model age dating are likely not their true real-time ages, which according to the biblical paradigm is only about 6000 real-time years. However, Snelling (2014a,b,c) suggested that drawing final conclusions from the radioisotope dating data for just these 16 chondrite and 12 eucrite meteorites was still premature, and recommended further studies of more meteorites from still other classification groups. This present contribution is therefore designed to further document the radioisotope dating data for more meteorites, the primitive achondrites and the other achondrites, the latter encompassing the angrites, aubrites, mesosiderites (stony-irons), and irons, so as to continue the discussion of the potential significance of these data."

The "contamination" is what we were discussing of meteorites comes from that which I mentioned with Gale in 1972.

"In 1972, however, Gale et al.showed unequivocally that there is by no means sufficient uranium and thorium to account for what could previously have been called radiogenic lead. Since the lead in meteorites can no longer be ascribed to uranium/thorium decay, it may also be taken to represent primordial lead.

Therefore, since the lead isotope ratios for the majority of meteorites are the same as present day common lead ratios and may also be assumed to represent primordial lead, the billion year age chronology disappears.

In case the significance of these results is ignored, a few sentences from the Gale et al should reveal their importance:

“ … it is not widely appreciated, outside the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or meteoritics that, judged by modern standards, the meteoritic lead-lead isochron is very poorly established. “This (work) shows unequivocally for the first time that there is indeed a real problem in the uranium/lead evolution in meteorites, in that in each of these meteorites there is now insufficient uranium to support the lead isotope composition. “It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy.”

In plain language, the radiometric estimates for the age of the earth are lacking real foundations."

Gale. N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R., Nature Phys. Science 240:57, 1972

The above has been mothballed by the evolutionists as well as the fine tuning facts during their investigation of big bang.

 

[Wuwei]

Now you are being stubborn, Wuwei. Unless you know what the parent-daughter ratios were, then we cannot really discuss accurate radiometric dating. If God did create a mature universe, then the light and radiation will be mature, as well. This is why I keep asking you if you have any other evidence? I don't think there is or else I would probably know about it. You are basing old Earth on two things -- evolution and assumption of old Earth and universe from radioisotope dating of meteorites which you did not exactly agree with. Have you changed your mind and agree with it now? If what you state is correct, then there would be other evidence to back you up.
......................

I'm sorry you wasted your time on a tangent that I was not pursuing. I will try to clarify.

1. I'm not pursuing dating from meteorites. You already know that.
2. I am not trying to find an estimated age of the earth. You must have forgotten.
3. I have not pressed for Darwinian evolution in this thread. You don't have to keep bringing it up.
4. I am demonstrating that the earth age is at least in the millions or billions of years. That forms a lower bound of the earth age, not the age itself.
5. Therefore only the parent-daughter ratios of the many earth based isotopes need to be considered.
6. I gave you one example of triple redundant aging that the earth was at least 67 million years old.
7. I gave you an example that diamonds with inclusions show around 3 billion years.
8. There are no doubt thousands of other datings that are similarly robust.
9. That means the earth is much much older than 10 thousand years.

You mentioned that God could have created a mature earth. That would be abandoning "Creation Science" which is the basis here.

You have not given anybody's argument that all the thousands of earthbound radiological datings using dozens of parent-daughter isotopes are flawed.
.

 

[Wuwei]

I asked this a few posts back that covers why I think "Creation Science" is not science. I will expand it slightly here. Many important concepts in physics are really sloppily treated by creationists.

You referenced a video by astrophysicist, Dr. Jason Lisle. He covers reasons he thinks that galaxies are very young here:
Discoverers Of First Extrasolar Planet Win Nobel...

These are his points:

1. Perhaps god is using an "anisotropic time zone." Similar to earth time zones. So it's not really an issue.
   He should give a quantitative mathematical model of what he thinks the anisotropy is and how it shows the furthest galaxies are not old. Changing a basis unit for time simply doesn't change time itself.
2. Perhaps time flows more slowly in distant galaxies.
   He should posit a formula of time as a function of distance and compare it to Hubble's graphic plots of time versus distance. Is his graph linear? Is it logarithmic? Does it agree with experiment? Does the velocity of light change? He does not do anything in that detail, and that is what a phD in astrophysics should do.
3. Could be supernatural.
   He abandons the idea of science altogether let alone "Creation Science" He doesn't expand on that. What factors are in play and how are they changed? Can there be a mathematical model for the supernatural? That should be the approach for a scientist.
4. The cosmic microwave background is so uniform.
   What does he propose a nonuniformity should be, and how does that relate to galactic distance. Again, if he is proposing a relation between time, or age against uniformity, it should be quantitative, not just left hanging
5. It's not a problem for an infinite God.
   That is not science. That is religion.

Dr. Lisle does does have a degree in astrophysics, but as a scientist he is very negligent. He does not do what science demands.
.

 

[Wuwei]

Anyway, if you look at Greek Mythology, then do you see more resemblance with evolution's story or the Bible theory?

The ancient mythology was definitely creationist. My memory was slightly wrong. I looked up Bulfinch's Mythology and saw I was referring to Roman, not Greek mythology. It's interesting how closely it follows the bible.

It starts with an unknown god who "raised mountains, scooped out valleys, distributed woods, fields, stony plains ... animals ... fish ... birds, ...." Later "Prometheus ... made man in the image of the gods". Jupiter was ticked and made Pandora and, as punishment, he sent her to Prometheus. He gave her to Epimetheus (Adam?) who had a box (the apple?) which Pandora (Eve?) opened and brought disease and sins, etc to the world.
Jupiter was ticked at this and, with the help of Neptune, flooded the earth. Only Deucalion (Noah?) and his wife Pyrrha survived on a mountain top. Jupiter decided to save them because of their "pious demeanor."

It's not clear which came first, but the close story lines of Genesis and Roman mythology, seem more than coincidence.

.

 

[luchitociencia]

......................

I'm sorry you wasted your time on a tangent that I was not pursuing. I will try to clarify.

1. I'm not pursuing dating from meteorites. You already know that.
2. I am not trying to find an estimated age of the earth. You must have forgotten.
3. I have not pressed for Darwinian evolution in this thread. You don't have to keep bringing it up.
4. I am demonstrating that the earth age is at least in the millions or billions of years. That forms a lower bound of the earth age, not the age itself.
5. Therefore only the parent-daughter ratios of the many earth based isotopes need to be considered.
6. I gave you one example of triple redundant aging that the earth was at least 67 million years old.
7. I gave you an example that diamonds with inclusions show around 3 billion years.
8. There are no doubt thousands of other datings that are similarly robust.
9. That means the earth is much much older than 10 thousand years.

You mentioned that God could have created a mature earth. That would be abandoning "Creation Science" which is the basis here.

You have not given anybody's argument that all the thousands of earthbound radiological datings using dozens of parent-daughter isotopes are flawed.
.[/QUOTE]

Problem with the dating you lean on is the invalidity of your results.

Look. I will give you a clear example based on reality, in observed reality.

You will claim that I'm talking about oranges while you are talking about bananas, however, you have no argument whatsover to reject what I'm going to write as valid to be used as a comparison of decay.

Astronauts have a huge health degenerate rate when they are for six months at the space station. So, it was a test to be made about the rate of decay of humans in space.

The only way to check and verify this decay as "constant" was to send astronauts to stay one year in space.

You see? the experiment is valid, The experiment is great. What do you think? Am i right? Sure I am.

Then, American and Russian astronauts were sent to the space station for one year.

Did their bodies deteriorated at the same rate after the initial six months?

The answer: NO.

The human body continued deteriorating but at a lower rate. It can be by many reasons, like the body getting used to the minimum gravity, and many other reasons.

So, this is a proven fact, -you see, science is about facts- that at certain point, the decay won't continue at the same rate but will increase or will decrease at a certain point.

You can observe this phenomenon with all things around you, I can mention thousands if no millions of examples, and regardless of the causes, decay suffers of disparate rate.

The problem with your data =from which the instruments used have not been verified as well-, the problem is that you have not a single idea about any increase or decrease of decay rate in matter throughout its whole existence, and if there is any variation in this decay, you neither know what is the rate of it.

Yes, about this issue you are a complete ignorant. Actually, we, the whole people interested in this issue, we don't have a single idea of such rate.

So, everything you have at hand is received with doubt, and this is a justified doubt, because your results come without guarantee, without confidence, but with lots of fanaticism from your part and the ones who have put their trust on those.

Face it, you don't have any trustworthy data, so... forget about it.

 

[james bond]

It's not clear which came first, but the close story lines of Genesis and Roman mythology, seem more than coincidence.

Look at the Biblical timeline I posted. The OT was written by Moses. It came before both Roman and Greek mythology even though the entire Bible was compiled later. We were able to falsify Greek mythology through objects not being there or through location. Location of places mentioned in the Bible are able to be found. The Bible is considered a historical book and work of non-fiction. I like to think of it as God's autobiography. Moreover, I pointed out that myths come out of knowledge that which is considered true and not vice versa.

 

[james bond]

I'm sorry you wasted your time on a tangent that I was not pursuing. I will try to clarify.

1. I'm not pursuing dating from meteorites. You already know that.
2. I am not trying to find an estimated age of the earth. You must have forgotten.
3. I have not pressed for Darwinian evolution in this thread. You don't have to keep bringing it up.
4. I am demonstrating that the earth age is at least in the millions or billions of years. That forms a lower bound of the earth age, not the age itself.
5. Therefore only the parent-daughter ratios of the many earth based isotopes need to be considered.
6. I gave you one example of triple redundant aging that the earth was at least 67 million years old.
7. I gave you an example that diamonds with inclusions show around 3 billion years.
8. There are no doubt thousands of other datings that are similarly robust.
9. That means the earth is much much older than 10 thousand years.

You mentioned that God could have created a mature earth. That would be abandoning "Creation Science" which is the basis here.

You have not given anybody's argument that all the thousands of earthbound radiological datings using dozens of parent-daughter isotopes are flawed.
.

It wasn't clear what you were going for so I egged you with a few things. I just wanted to clarify what your positions were since they're not considered evolutionist.

1. So, let's skip the meteorites and I'm going to assume that you do not agree with dating those.
2. No, I thought you were going for Shirey and his dating of 65 million years or so just to show an older Earth that thousands of years.
3. Again, I'm probing since I'm not a mind reader. Most of the time, it's more accurate to argue creation vs. evolution, but we're just discussing a young Earth or old Earth.
4. I think it depends on whether you know the ratios of parent-daughter elements when Earth started. Creation scientists can explain it better than I can. There is a little more to it and there needs to be more observers according to Tas Walker's argument:

"This illustrates the problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history."

I mentioned it as "contamination" as we do not know what happened to the meteorite that Patterson used.

One of the assumptions, I think you make is that somehow Shirey or your tester knew and was able to validate the dating over this time period. You know that isn't true. He doesn't really know what was there in the beginning. What he's trying to show is that there was no contamination. If we had a mature Earth and universe, then the isotopes would be more than just like new. Otherwise, we would get different readings. Furthermore, I pointed out the results by Gale in 1972. Does that also apply to your measurements?

I think the examples you state follow what Walker is referring to. You provide the flawless methodology, but do not explain what I am asking for nor how things were measured as the radioactive decay went on. If something changed while the measuring was going on, then the results would be skewed. We don't know what happened. For example, if we turned a 24-hr hourglass upside down at midnight and then observed it next morning as four hours elapsed, then we would know that it does not make sense or the results was not right. What we didn't know was my little sister tipped the hourglass and later she straightened it out again, so it was working again. IOW, there's a validation step missing, but you're going to say that what was inside the diamond was protected. What about outside? I also asked whether the creation scientists could measure those inclused diamonds? Wouldn't you think the opposition would want to test the results? I think your explanation shows some room for error. One of the things I would want to see is you measure something that I know the age of. We knew approximately how long the hourglass waw running if it continued running and was not altered with.

If your sample was indeed 65 millions years old, then I would want to know where it was. Next, I would want to know what happened during those years around the area. If other humans were around, then it certainly could have been disturbed.

Radioactive dating fatal flaw - creation.com

 

[luchitociencia]

Twenty plus years ago, there were forums of science, like Time and NBC News forums -as examples- which were very popular between the few forums online in those years.

Like here, I was discussing the failure of the theory of evolution, and I opened two topics, which took the lead in discussions. While other topics reached 20 replies, mine reached about 600 and were increasing higher until the host closed the whole forums. They had to, there was released information they didn't want others to know.

About the cave man.

That was a favorite topic of the evolutionists, and a former finding of a jaw in a cave incited their argument in favor of their good for nothing theory.

I took the information, and compared it with other places were man lived in caves. I returned back to that forum and explained how wrong evolutionists always have been.

When you compare caves where man inhabited for several years, lets say Altamira, -which is estimated man lived there for tens and even hundreds of years-, it is UNACCEPTABLE to think that with such intellect not only of making tools and even were so creative to make such drawings, that man had no capability to live in buildings made with his own hands.

Twenty years ago, I explained that caves were used as temporary shelters after a catastrophe.

Like today, people is sent to stadiums, municipal halls, and etc. after a disaster in their area, and stay over there for days, weeks, even months. The same as well, ancient men found caves as temporary shelter after losing their city for some reason, lets say, the river flooded and destroyed everything around, the beasts also were affected and came out of their former living space and became a new challenge for men, etc.

The game to play is to isolate which cave was the temporary shelter mentioned above, and which one might support the evolutionist idea.

So far, the existence of several caves with drawings and carving of images inside, is what debunks the primeval evolutionist idea about the cave man.

Even the Mayans made drawings inside caves. I have the strong opinion those drawings show they were refugees from a catastrophe, and they pictured some events, like writing what happened, why they are living inside that cave.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I took the information, and compared it with other places were man lived in caves. I returned back to that forum and explained how wrong evolutionists always have been.

And everyone laughed at you. They still are.

 

[Wuwei]

1. So, let's skip the meteorites and I'm going to assume that you do not agree with dating those.
2. No, I thought you were going for Shirey and his dating of 65 million years or so just to show an older Earth that thousands of years.
3. Again, I'm probing since I'm not a mind reader. Most of the time, it's more accurate to argue creation vs. evolution, but we're just discussing a young Earth or old Earth.
4. I think it depends on whether you know the ratios of parent-daughter elements when Earth started. Creation scientists can explain it better than I can. There is a little more to it and there needs to be more observers according to Tas Walker's argument:

"This illustrates the problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history."

1. I didn't mean to say I disagree with meteorite dating. There are no doubt many different assays for dating meteorites.
2. Yes, I wanted to change the focus to simply showing an old earth, and not the more arguable task of how old.
3. It's more accurate to argue young vs old earth.
4. That's right nobody monitored the the initial elements and the way the elements transformed.

What follows is the flaw in the rest of the creationist logic you posted.

Parent/daughter radiological dating is used in very old areas where samples are deemed to be millions to billions of years old. If creationists think the earth is from 6 to 50 thousand years old then there would be absolutely no measurable daughter isotopes, and the original elements would be in their original condition because the time is too short to have any decay to daughter isotopes.

Then creationists would have to explain how the observed element ratios got there in the first place. They would have to explain how all the various daughter elements got in all three parent elements in the triple redundancy of Schweitzer's explored area. There should have been no daughter elements. There should also have been no Osmium in Dr. Shirey's inclusions of diamonds; only the original Rhenium.

Again: 6 to 50 thousand years means zero daughter isotopes for absolutely all the thousands of radiological datings of earth samples. The creationists you cite don't seem to get this.

.

 

[james bond]

1. So, let's skip the meteorites and I'm going to assume that you do not agree with dating those.
2. No, I thought you were going for Shirey and his dating of 65 million years or so just to show an older Earth that thousands of years.
3. Again, I'm probing since I'm not a mind reader. Most of the time, it's more accurate to argue creation vs. evolution, but we're just discussing a young Earth or old Earth.
4. I think it depends on whether you know the ratios of parent-daughter elements when Earth started. Creation scientists can explain it better than I can. There is a little more to it and there needs to be more observers according to Tas Walker's argument:

"This illustrates the problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history."

1. I didn't mean to say I disagree with meteorite dating. There are no doubt many different assays for dating meteorites.
2. Yes, I wanted to change the focus to simply showing an old earth, and not the more arguable task of how old.
3. It's more accurate to argue young vs old earth.
4. That's right nobody monitored the the initial elements and the way the elements transformed.

What follows is the flaw in the rest of the creationist logic you posted.

Parent/daughter radiological dating is used in very old areas where samples are deemed to be millions to billions of years old. If creationists think the earth is from 6 to 50 thousand years old then there would be absolutely no measurable daughter isotopes, and the original elements would be in their original condition because the time is too short to have any decay to daughter isotopes.

Then creationists would have to explain how the observed element ratios got there in the first place. They would have to explain how all the various daughter elements got in all three parent elements in the triple redundancy of Schweitzer's explored area. There should have been no daughter elements. There should also have been no Osmium in Dr. Shirey's inclusions of diamonds; only the original Rhenium.

Again: 6 to 50 thousand years means zero daughter isotopes for absolutely all the thousands of radiological datings of earth samples. The creationists you cite don't seem to get this.

.

1. Come now, let's not be coy. It was using meteorites to derive the age of the Earth in 1956. I suppose your intuition wouldn't let you.
2. And we disagreed. Why not let others date a few of these diamonds? Obviously, Shirey didn't date the coal, rocks, or meteorites either.
3. Yes, I think so, but not using dating techniques. We found you don't trust creationists (because of their source (?)) and don't trust their radiocarbon dating due to contamination. I thought Shirey had nothing to do with age of the Earth and it would be comparing apples to oranges. The YEC would not have thought to ask him to see about examining his diamonds. The evos dating doesn't explain what was there at the beginning nor what changed while the dating was going on. We found this in 1972.
4. Okay.

However, your logic is flawed with the creationist logic. They brought up primordial or what was there at the origin. Thus, we do not know what the ratios were and don't know what their original conditions were. Isn't this a flaw you state in your logic?

This sounds like apples to oranges again, but creationists do not have access to the data nor the samples. With the carbon and diamonds, they tested what was claimed to be coal and diamonds found to be billions of years old. Don't you think both sides have to test the same material and present their findings?

Again, look at what God created in the seven days of creation. He created adult everything. An adult universe would not have young isotopes nor early light. Let's say you were created miraculously at 25 yrs old. Would you expect to have genetic material similar to a baby's? You would have adult genetic material. Time is chronological and is also how long it took as one moved from one point to another. I think it's a concept, but it affects reality and matter.

I do want to ask you about chronological dating to sedimentary layers. Do you believe that dating layers is feasible through assuming old layers are on the bottom and newer layers on top?

 

[james bond]

Twenty plus years ago, there were forums of science, like Time and NBC News forums -as examples- which were very popular between the few forums online in those years.

Like here, I was discussing the failure of the theory of evolution, and I opened two topics, which took the lead in discussions. While other topics reached 20 replies, mine reached about 600 and were increasing higher until the host closed the whole forums. They had to, there was released information they didn't want others to know.

About the cave man.

That was a favorite topic of the evolutionists, and a former finding of a jaw in a cave incited their argument in favor of their good for nothing theory.

I took the information, and compared it with other places were man lived in caves. I returned back to that forum and explained how wrong evolutionists always have been.

When you compare caves where man inhabited for several years, lets say Altamira, -which is estimated man lived there for tens and even hundreds of years-, it is UNACCEPTABLE to think that with such intellect not only of making tools and even were so creative to make such drawings, that man had no capability to live in buildings made with his own hands.

Twenty years ago, I explained that caves were used as temporary shelters after a catastrophe.

Like today, people is sent to stadiums, municipal halls, and etc. after a disaster in their area, and stay over there for days, weeks, even months. The same as well, ancient men found caves as temporary shelter after losing their city for some reason, lets say, the river flooded and destroyed everything around, the beasts also were affected and came out of their former living space and became a new challenge for men, etc.

The game to play is to isolate which cave was the temporary shelter mentioned above, and which one might support the evolutionist idea.

So far, the existence of several caves with drawings and carving of images inside, is what debunks the primeval evolutionist idea about the cave man.

Even the Mayans made drawings inside caves. I have the strong opinion those drawings show they were refugees from a catastrophe, and they pictured some events, like writing what happened, why they are living inside that cave.

I think you are fine when discussing and sticking to a topic. It's when you veer from it, then I and others start wondering what is opinion and what is that which you are claiming. I have heard that prehistoric cave people were evolutionary thinking, but using caves as temporary shelters is something I would agree with, too. Is there a relationship between the art and writings found to catastrophe or why they were there temporarily? That would further your argument. Normally, one does not hear about caves being temporary shelters. Historically, humans have used caves as tombs, as well, which is more permanent. Can you think of anything else? The only other thing I can think of is for travel as in part of a path or used to go further underground and explore. Some do it as a hobby in spelunking.

ETA: Here's one opinion of mine. I think archaeologists have a better grasp of what happened than paleontologists. Recently, we had paleontologists claim birds evolved from dinosaurs and now they are pictured with feathers. Are we going to have the fictional Jurassic Park franchise have feathered Raptors and T-Rex's from now on. More evidence of fiction following what is found to be true or new knowledge. In this case, wrong knowledge if there is such a thing. Also, I found founder Joseph Barbera was Christian, so that explains dinosaurs and people living together, but not the prehistoric people. Shrug.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The creationists you cite don't seem to get this.

You understand, I hope:

Bond doesnt get this, either. He literally knows less than nothing about any of this material. He has not posted a single thing in this topic that he both did not actually understand and did not plagiarize directly from creation.com.

 

[luchitociencia]

I think you are fine when discussing and sticking to a topic. It's when you veer from it, then I and others start wondering what is opinion and what is that which you are claiming. I have heard that prehistoric cave people were evolutionary thinking, but using caves as temporary shelters is something I would agree with, too. Is there a relationship between the art and writings found to catastrophe or why they were there temporarily? That would further your argument. Normally, one does not hear about caves being temporary shelters. Historically, humans have used caves as tombs, as well, which is more permanent. Can you think of anything else? The only other thing I can think of is for travel as in part of a path or used to go further underground and explore. Some do it as a hobby in spelunking.

I took the idea from the bible. This is why I never tried to take credit of it.

I have taken credit and copyrights of a law I discovered in those years, establishing we can perceive the entire universe in its present simultaneously with our present. I have other studies of mine as well, to which guys have had hard time to beat with their theories.

The caves' drawings mostly send the message of what happened in those moments. Amazingly similar drawings are found in different parts of the world, indicating that the event was of huge proportions.Like to say, cultures of the same era making the drawing of the same comet. It is understood that the similarity are from drawings and/or carvings inside caves and outside as well.

Also, you are correct, that those were painted in a cave because are protected from rain, as a probability.

But, they won't show to be made by travelers because for many of the paintings it will take time to prepare the different colors to make the art work. The drawings and carvings are more acceptable to come from residents of the area.

ETA: Here's one opinion of mine. I think archaeologists have a better grasp of what happened than paleontologists. Recently, we had paleontologists claim birds evolved from dinosaurs and now they are pictured with feathers. Are we going to have the fictional Jurassic Park franchise have feathered Raptors and T-Rex's from now on. More evidence of fiction following what is found to be true or new knowledge. In this case, wrong knowledge if there is such a thing. Also, I found founder Joseph Barbera was Christian, so that explains dinosaurs and people living together, but not the prehistoric people. Shrug.

I think in this part the error comes from you.

And this is what it was part of the discussion in those years. Some participants ignored in the 90's the knowledge of dinosaurs as having warm blood. The information came to public knowledge several years later from the year of the discovery. I prepared three theories in those years, The Recycling Process of Life on Earth was one of them. The idea was OK but I declined to continue because the lack of a primeval organism to start observing the assumed steps. But, I discovered something much better, the species solely decay.

That became my flag, and with it I made those guys to eat dirt by lots. Even more, I presented how organisms came to be, something that today was finally observed but is erroneously called as part of evolution. My prediction, based in my studies described the same process with a complete different name and definition, where evolution is not involved at all.

The bible says that fish and birds were created before man.

The discoveries made are backing up the bible, because for to start, the famous T-Rex was a warm blood animal and a bird. It was not a reptile or a lizard but a bird.

And 22 years ago I wrote that the T-Rex lost the big teeth and tail and start to become the current bird. Also, dinosaur eggs showed that those were feathered creatures and gave extraordinary support to my claims. Of course most of the information came before my claims, but in those years no one connected the dots as I did.

Today, of course, what I write is taken for granted by everybody, but decades ago, such was a topic that caused great rejection by many. Look at you, without knowing it, you are also rejecting something that supports the bible

 

[luchitociencia]

The creationists you cite don't seem to get this.

You understand, I hope:

Bond doesnt get this, either. He literally knows less than nothing about any of this material. He has not posted a single thing in this topic that he both did not actually understand and did not plagiarize directly from creation.com.

Indi, tell me what have you discovered by your own?

I'm not asking about your titles, diplomas, and similar.

But, about something you have discovered thanks to the knowledge you have acquired.

I see you criticizing others like if you know more than they do. Look, that is fine, but in order to enjoy such a luxury you must at least show something you have reach that no other did it before. This is a requisite to see if you really know about something.

Any experiment is valid, anything that by your own initiative you have performed in science. And look, no matter if results were contrary to your prediction, enough is that you found a procedure to make the project. Believe me or not, that means a lot.

I do not respond to your mockeries because I don't know if you are serious or just writing because you have a keyboard in front of you. I will love to hear from you what accomplishment in science you have fulfilled or at least tried without success. Something that tells me you are not a copy and paste person but someone who really feel attraction -if not passion- for science.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I see you criticizing others like if you know more than they do.

No. I criticize them for claiming to know more than they do. And the empirical knowledge we have is quite independent of what I know r have discovered. Your silly questions about what i have "discovered" are an older than dirt religious charlatan trick. The predictable end of your overwrought, dishonest line of argument is to say nobody can ever really know anything...

...at which time, you will then proceed to tell us all the answers to everything, haha. Same religious horseshit, different millennium.

 

[james bond]

The creationists you cite don't seem to get this.

You understand, I hope:

Bond doesnt get this, either. He literally knows less than nothing about any of this material. He has not posted a single thing in this topic that he both did not actually understand and did not plagiarize directly from creation.com.

We celebrated Thanksgiving yesterday and I'm cleaning up. It seems less stressful this way and I get more time off. What is the material I do not get? You are not intellectually capable of explaining, let alone have a meaningful opinion on it. Let's just leave it to someone who can and you can stay on the sidelines and maybe learn something..

 

[james bond]

I think you are fine when discussing and sticking to a topic. It's when you veer from it, then I and others start wondering what is opinion and what is that which you are claiming. I have heard that prehistoric cave people were evolutionary thinking, but using caves as temporary shelters is something I would agree with, too. Is there a relationship between the art and writings found to catastrophe or why they were there temporarily? That would further your argument. Normally, one does not hear about caves being temporary shelters. Historically, humans have used caves as tombs, as well, which is more permanent. Can you think of anything else? The only other thing I can think of is for travel as in part of a path or used to go further underground and explore. Some do it as a hobby in spelunking.

I took the idea from the bible. This is why I never tried to take credit of it.

I have taken credit and copyrights of a law I discovered in those years, establishing we can perceive the entire universe in its present simultaneously with our present. I have other studies of mine as well, to which guys have had hard time to beat with their theories.

The caves' drawings mostly send the message of what happened in those moments. Amazingly similar drawings are found in different parts of the world, indicating that the event was of huge proportions.Like to say, cultures of the same era making the drawing of the same comet. It is understood that the similarity are from drawings and/or carvings inside caves and outside as well.

Also, you are correct, that those were painted in a cave because are protected from rain, as a probability.

But, they won't show to be made by travelers because for many of the paintings it will take time to prepare the different colors to make the art work. The drawings and carvings are more acceptable to come from residents of the area.

ETA: Here's one opinion of mine. I think archaeologists have a better grasp of what happened than paleontologists. Recently, we had paleontologists claim birds evolved from dinosaurs and now they are pictured with feathers. Are we going to have the fictional Jurassic Park franchise have feathered Raptors and T-Rex's from now on. More evidence of fiction following what is found to be true or new knowledge. In this case, wrong knowledge if there is such a thing. Also, I found founder Joseph Barbera was Christian, so that explains dinosaurs and people living together, but not the prehistoric people. Shrug.

I think in this part the error comes from you.

And this is what it was part of the discussion in those years. Some participants ignored in the 90's the knowledge of dinosaurs as having warm blood. The information came to public knowledge several years later from the year of the discovery. I prepared three theories in those years, The Recycling Process of Life on Earth was one of them. The idea was OK but I declined to continue because the lack of a primeval organism to start observing the assumed steps. But, I discovered something much better, the species solely decay.

That became my flag, and with it I made those guys to eat dirt by lots. Even more, I presented how organisms came to be, something that today was finally observed but is erroneously called as part of evolution. My prediction, based in my studies described the same process with a complete different name and definition, where evolution is not involved at all.

The bible says that fish and birds were created before man.

The discoveries made are backing up the bible, because for to start, the famous T-Rex was a warm blood animal and a bird. It was not a reptile or a lizard but a bird.

And 22 years ago I wrote that the T-Rex lost the big teeth and tail and start to become the current bird. Also, dinosaur eggs showed that those were feathered creatures and gave extraordinary support to my claims. Of course most of the information came before my claims, but in those years no one connected the dots as I did.

Today, of course, what I write is taken for granted by everybody, but decades ago, such was a topic that caused great rejection by many. Look at you, without knowing it, you are also rejecting something that supports the bible

Now, you're veering off into several different topics which was my criticism of your posts. What I brought up was first that evolutionists were the ones who claimed prehistoric cave people. These came from the macroevolution of monkeys to proto-apes and eventually humans. Thus animals were supposedly people labeled as australopithecus, ardipithecus, paranthropus and more. Now, we have a group of people who didn't exist before. However, before the 1850s and Darwinism, people didn't believe in these people. The secular scientists believed in creation. Thus, we have arguments between creationists and evolutionists today. These are the two main camps, but evolutionists gained power and eliminated their opposition in science, claiming that it was religion, and these creation scientists could not participate in peer reviews anymore. They could not get published in mainstream science journals when they could before.

From this changed environment, one of the things atheists and their evolutionist scientists do not believe is prehistoric people lived with dinosaurs. They also do not know that creation scientists do not believe in prehistoric peoples. Thus, we have a huge difference of the history of humans whether they were able to use tools, language, write, and communicate with each other. Obviously, if you believe in monkey people, then you're not going to have these things.

Neanderthals
Fossil Hominids, Human Evolution: Thomas Huxley & Eugene Dubois

Diabetes
The deep roots of diabetes

DNA
Making sense of ancient hominin DNA

Creation
What does the Bible say about cavemen, prehistoric men, neanderthals? | GotQuestions.org

So, what we end up establishing is an evolutionist history and a creation history (treated as "faith based" science or religion) while creationists claim atheists and their scientists use "faith-based" science and that it could be considered religion.

In a nutshell, creation is as follows:

and you are discussing Day 5 and comparing it to Day 6. It really depends on what one calls birds or flying animals and what one calls land animals. We also have differences in terminology with dragons and dinosaurs, but I consider those the same. We could have had flying dinosaurs (not pterosaurs) as well land birds (feathered animals who do not fly).